Staying true to our core social work values during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a tremendous impact on the lives of individuals, families, and communities around the world. While we have survived numerous crises over centuries, this event called into question a desire for answers like never before. The COVID-19 pandemic challenged professionals from all disciplines to act. While epidemiologists researched and physicians treated, the philosophers and existentialists began to ponder mortality and search for answers. There were those who pontificated about politics and oppression. All the while hospital beds were filled to capacity, and cities around the world stood still;social workers were among a group of essential workers who also had to grapple with many challenges;some even called into question our profession's code of ethics. For many social workers, it was the first time having to confront issues related to social justice and their personal values and consider ethical issues from providing services through digital technology and a test of their competence during this tumultuous time. As social workers, this is part of our calling, our mission to serve, and our responsibility to be where our clients are at, both emotionally and physically. Yet, what about the risks? What about the fears? Could we still instill a sense of hope in the face of despair? This chapter examines our profession's six core values and their applicability at a nonprofit human service organization delivering mental health and supportive services throughout New York City during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and why it's needed now more than ever. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

COVID-19 in a New York City Behavioral Health Housing and Treatment System.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to characterize the incidence of COVID-19 illness, hospitalization, and death among congregate and noncongregate cohorts served by a New York City behavioral health agency. METHODS: From March 9 to May 3, 2020, data were collected on COVID-19 symptoms, testing, hospitalization, and mortality for 8,256 individuals living in 29 congregate programs (residences and homeless shelters) or served by 41 noncongregate programs (scattered-site housing or outpatient treatment programs). RESULTS: Of the 218 (2.6%) individuals who developed COVID-19-like illness, 84 (39%) were able to obtain testing. Of the 77 individuals who tested positive, 49 (64%) were hospitalized and 19 (25%) died. Congregate housing, age over 45, and intellectual/developmental disabilities were significantly associated with hospitalization and death. CONCLUSIONS: Further research on risk and preventive factors is needed to address the high risk for people with serious mental illnesses and intellectual/developmental disabilities during a pandemic, particularly for those living in congregate housing.

Telehealth Acceptability and Feasibility Among People Served in a Community Behavioral Health System During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the acceptability and feasibility of telehealth services shortly after their rapid introduction into a community behavioral health agency as part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Individuals receiving services during May 8-18, 2020, from behavioral health programs that had introduced telehealth in March 2020, were invited to participate in a survey regarding their perceptions of the telehealth services. Ordinal logistic regressions were used to test for differences in survey responses in three ways: between program types, between the 2020 sample and a 2018 sample, and between individuals reported by staff to be distressed or not distressed by the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Of 1,482 survey respondents, >80% reported that their ability to connect to staff, receive support, and get an appointment was at least as great as before the pandemic. Among 80% of respondents indicating interest in continuing remote services after the pandemic ended, 83% preferred a mix of remote and face-to-face services. From February 2020 to April 2020, total service utilization remained stable for treatment, outreach, and housing programs. In addition, mental health-related hospital utilization did not increase. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that telehealth, including telephone-based services, is an acceptable and even preferred service delivery mode for clients with severe mental illness. Continued investigation into the optimal dosing of face-to-face versus remote services in various settings is needed to inform service practice during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.